Your claim is that John Paulson is contributing 5 orders of magnitude more to society than teachers, social workers, police officers, firefighters, construction workers, engineers, nurses, and soldiers?

It seems a bit intellectually unfair to pit one specific person against a bunch of vague groups of people that we generally hold favorable views towards.

In the aggregate, I think one can make the case that the wealthy contribute more to society than the poor, in the form of jobs, capital, etc. How do you determine value to a society other than through what the society is willing to pay? And if those other jobs were worth more to society, presumably we'd pay people more to do them.

A man was paid $6b for winning a bet against homeowners and the entire financial industry. It is relevant to point that out, because it directly contradicts the idea that a person's wealth is proportional to what they've contributed. And it's not like similar situations are hard to find (though his is a much more dramatic example than most).

What's intellectually dishonest is pretending that money is the only way to measure value.

Are you seriously arguing that millions of people should be taxed more on the basis of what one person may have done?

Are you seriously suggesting only one person has gotten wealthy without contributing to society?

No, but you seem to be arguing for a broader trend or application of the principle on an anecdote related to one person (and a pretty flimsy anecdote at that). Show me some data.